Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right that demand for social housing is growing, just as demand for housing is growing across the board. That is why we have made it clear that we need to build new homes. We are funding a 50 per cent. increase in the number of new social houses over the next three years. We have already doubled new investment in social housing and doubled investment in repairs and refurbishment as well. We must recognise that we had to deal with a disgraceful situation: the previous Government left us a £19 billion backlog in repairs and maintenance, which meant that 2 million families were deprived of decent homes to live in.

Angela Watkinson: The problem with homelessness innovation funding is that, like so many of the Government's eye-catching initiatives, it is time-limited. What hope can the Minister offer for the future of projects such as Tomorrow's People in Southwark, which is successfully helping people out of the "no home, no job-no job, no home" trap that they fall into? Its funding ends in March.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome warmly the Deputy Prime Minister's answer. He will be aware that under the present law it is home owners who are responsible for knowing whether their homes are prone to flooding. Will he include in the revised planning guidance the requirement that it should be for developers to pass that knowledge on to home owners so that they can qualify for full insurance cover?

John Prescott: In the draft that we will publish shortly, I intend to introduce a statutory responsibility to consult the Environment Agency, not to avoid it. I think that it is involved in considering 50 per cent. of applications, but I need to make it a requirement that it considers all applications. However, I do not want to give the agency the sole power to have call-in rights because that should remain with local, democratically-accountable planning committees. However, if there is a dispute involving the Environment Agency, I can call the matter in myself through the appropriate Government office.

Mark Francois: The Deputy Prime Minister will be well aware that flooding has been an emotive issue in Essex going right back to the great flood of 1953 when more than 100 Essex people were killed? Will he thus assure the House, and especially Essex Members, that the Government will not try to cram excessive numbers of houses into flood-plain areas in the Thames Gateway if the Environment Agency specifically recommends against that?

John Prescott: The proposals that I have mentioned will give the Environment Agency greater influence on matters involving flood-risk areas—we will certainly consider that. As I said, it will be the right of local authorities to make a decision on these matters. The Environment Agency can give advice and there will be a statutory requirement to consult it. However, I reserve the right to make a judgment at the end of the day.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that there are difficulties with the resources available. We have doubled them, but as he will know from a reply that I gave the last time that the House considered the matter, the Conservative party's proposal at the last election was to cut the money available for flood defences. In the election that is underway, perhaps he should ask the candidates whether they will continue with that policy, or change it.

John Prescott: I will be surprised if the agency has not done that, but I will make my own inquiries about the matter and write to my hon. Friend.

James Gray: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) called the regional assembly a useless organisation; I call it self-appointed and self-important. Is the Minister not aware that, irrespective of what happens to the South West regional assembly, the fact that the police, fire and ambulance services are, in effect, being regionalised and that planning is now being done not by local authorities but by those self-appointed people in Exeter means that we are facing the regionalisation of the south-west and the abolition of the 1,000-year-old county of Wiltshire? Will he not stand at the Dispatch Box and express his strong support for the county council structure in England, which has stood the test of time?

Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Minister clarify what new powers his Department proposes to give the assembly? Specifically, is the intention to give the assembly powers over transport planning and control over the transport budget for the whole of the south-west?

David Miliband: On the first point, an independent report by Arup has complimented the positive impact of the regional assembly. Secondly, the 31 Conservative councillors on the regional assembly are free to try to abolish the regional assembly, which is a voluntary body set up by local council, and they are at perfect liberty to withdraw from that body tomorrow or the day after.

Jim Fitzpatrick: We have doubled the investment in socially affordable homes since 1997, as I have mentioned. We are working as hard as we can. In the first instance, we have prioritised the 2 million homes below the decency threshold. We have introduced a step change in housing new build. We are working with the Housing Corporation to ensure that those in need of homes get them as soon as possible.
	We will be helping 100,000 people to get their homes by 2010, including those on the housing waiting list and those who come within the key workers' strategy. We are clearly demonstrating that we are working hard to deal with the housing backlog. However, to deal with decades of no new build will take us time. We are on target for 1.1 million homes by 2016 in London and the south-east.

Alistair Burt: The neighbourhood renewal fund is all about building communities up. How does that fit in with the Department's pathfinder project, which is literally about pulling communities down?

Tony Blair: First, let me thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his advice—I am sure that it is kindly meant. But let me give him some advice. When he wins an election, then he can give advice to someone who has won three. [Laughter.]

Tony Blair: The right hon. Gentleman is right that the amount of money that the Child Support Agency gets in is not substantially greater than the amount of money that it costs to administer it. That is different from the situation in 1997, when it was the other way round. However, I make no defence of the current situation. The CSA is in an extremely difficult position for a very simple reason, and it is as well that we are absolutely frank about that. It is the investigating agency, then it is the adjudicating agency, and then it is the enforcement agency. That is an extremely difficult situation, and the staff who have to work in the present system do so in conditions of very great difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman should remember why the CSA—[Interruption.] Incidentally, the Conservatives created it, and when we took over its administrative costs outweighed the amount of money that it got in.
	Having said that, the truth is that the situation at the CSA is extremely difficult, and we are looking urgently at what the solutions might be. The problem is fundamental to the nature of the task that it is called upon to perform.

Charles Kennedy: The Prime Minister tells the House that he is looking urgently at the situation. However, he was looking urgently at it as Prime Minister seven years ago. What has happened in the intervening period? In the past four years, there have been 35,000 cases of maladministration, and there is now a backlog of 350,000 cases. Unpaid maintenance now stands at £1.7 billion. What on earth can the Prime Minister mean by "urgently" in the light of such a disgraceful record?

Tony Blair: We legislated on this before, to simplify the procedure involved, and that has reduced the costs quite considerably. However, the basic problem remains. I am not disputing the difficulties; indeed, I agree that they exist. Let me make a point that emphasises those difficulties. As the figures to which the right hon. Gentleman referred show, the vast majority of the compensation payments—33,000 of the 35,000—were for amounts less than £1,000—

Tony Blair: Of course it is, but it is extremely difficult to make this operation cost-effective when the agency is the investigating, adjudicating and enforcing authority. Furthermore, in the majority of cases that the agency deals with, the child concerned is the product neither of a married relationship nor of a stable partnership. All I am saying is that the task that we are asking the agency to perform is an extremely difficult one—[Hon. Members: "What are you going to do about it?"] I was about to say that we cannot discuss sensibly the Child Support Agency unless we are prepared to look urgently at the fundamental nature of the task that it performs, and at the reasons why it was set up in the first place. For reasons that I understand, the previous Conservative Government established the agency to ensure that parents carried out their obligations to their children. The truth is that the agency is not properly suited to carry out that task.

Tony Blair: First, that is not the basis on which people are being prosecuted, and the Army Prosecuting Authority—I am pleased to make this very clear—has the sole responsibility to decide on prosecution or otherwise. I understand that one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends was saying the other day that either I or one of the Ministers had something to do with the initiation of particular prosecutions. Let me make it quite clear that that is completely untrue. The prosecutions are initiated by the Army Prosecuting Authority, not by Ministers.
	Secondly, let me say this to the hon. Gentleman: I yield to nobody in my support for our armed forces in what they have done—in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Kosovo, in Bosnia, in Sierra Leone. They have done a magnificent job, and I think that the whole House should be proud, as should the country, of the contribution they made. Any wrongdoing that ever occurs comes, I am quite sure, from a very small minority—totally unrepresentative of the broad mass of the British armed forces. Time and again, I, like Prime Ministers before me, have had cause to be grateful to them.

Tony Blair: It is not only that the nurses and doctors are excellent in the hon. Gentleman's area; there are many more of them under this Government. In fact, to be precise, there are 2,700 more nurses, 390 more consultants and 516 more doctors.
	Also, the South West Oxfordshire primary care trust has £166 million of funding, which is an increase of 6.5 per cent. on the previous year. It is true that there is a deficit in the South West Oxfordshire PCT. Last year, three organisations, of which it was one, were responsible for the £11.5 million deficit in that area, which was offset against surpluses in the remaining seven organisations. However much money is put into the NHS, there must be proper financial control. With the massive additional sums of money going into our health service, it is important that that money is properly used. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman agreed with that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that income tax be not chargeable on the earnings of persons living in poverty.
	The Bill is designed to alleviate poverty for some of the lowest-paid in our society. Those who earn less that 45 per cent. of the median of annual earnings, as defined by the Office for National Statistics, are struggling to survive on the equivalent of less than the minimum wage for working a 40-hour week. That group includes far too many of our youngest employees and elderly pensioners with a small amount of savings. I believe that there is a moral injustice in charging those people income tax on their meagre wages.
	I propose to abolish income tax permanently for that group, which, on the basis of current figures, includes all whose income is £10,000 a year or less. Their income tax bills would be reduced by about £872 per year, which would offer a considerable fillip to their wages, and, above all, provide an incentive to work and improve their standard of living.
	To enhance those proposals, I also suggest the adoption of a system whereby those earning between £10,000 and £15,000 a year can be phased into the existing tax system through a £1 decrease in their new tax allowance for every additional £1 that they earn. Those earning between £10,000 and £15,000 would pay half the income tax that they pay now, while those earning more than £15,000 would be taxed according to the existing system. Although the means of introducing that method of easing low earners back into the existing income tax system would fall beyond the remit of my Bill, I believe that it would facilitate the implementation of my proposals.
	The Conservative party has a proud record of helping those who are most disadvantaged in society. We are the only political party in Britain that has always offered the poorest in society the opportunity to pull themselves out of poverty and make a better life for themselves, their families and their communities. Indeed, the Conservative who was Chancellor of the Exchequer between 1993 and 1997 is the only current Member of this House who has made a real reduction in income tax—a reduction of 2p in the pound—that has not been accompanied by an increase in national insurance contributions, more than compensating for the reduction.
	Moreover, when the Conservative party was in office between 1990 and 1997, we helped 8.2 million of the poorest people on the basic rate of income tax by removing them from the system. That trend has, sadly, been reversed and, since 1997, 6.2 million of our poorest people have been dragged back into the system—a striking contradiction to the principle of the Rooker-Wise amendment introduced by the Labour party in 1977. Together, we must all foster a tax system that offers opportunity rather than entrapment. We must not construct a system that dictates that the poor are to be permanently trapped at the bottom of the income league.
	We all know about the difficulties that have been faced by hard-working families. The failing tax credit system has led to wrongful payments to 1.9 million of our poorest families and to thousands of people being financially crippled because of administrative error—and all at a cost of £475 million a year.
	My Bill aims to help to reverse that trend by taking 6.6 million of our lowest paid workers out of the income tax system altogether, and reducing the income tax burden for a further 6.1 million, thus helping a total of nearly 13 million people. That would result in more than £5 billion being redirected from the Government coffers to the pockets of our lowest paid workers. I believe that, because of the balancing increases in public revenues, which I will set out in a moment, it should be possible to achieve that without serious reductions in funding for our public services.
	Office for National Statistics figures show that we have an economy with only three quarters of those of working age actually in work. Moreover, there are some 625,000 employment vacancies, and there are more than 2 million people out of work who say that they would like to be in work. By allowing people to keep more of their own earnings, we will reduce welfare costs. Depending on the number of people who are encouraged back into work, that saving could be as much as £2.5 billion.
	My proposals would make tax avoidance less profitable and so help the Government to tackle the black market and to improve the health and safety issues facing unregistered workers. Hopefully, a tragedy of the kind we saw at Morecambe bay would never occur again.
	Even Whitehall would make savings, as the Inland Revenue would not have to deal with the complex tax affairs of the low paid, who often change jobs, do a lot of casual work and drop in and out of employment. Sometimes, they work in the black economy. Those macro-economic benefits are of course important, but my Bill is designed, first and foremost, to help the poorest members of our work force, who will, for example, be able to choose to save more of their own earnings to counter the looming pensions crisis that so many of my constituents are having to struggle with, or to keep more of their wages so that they can start to pay off personal debts: unsecured debt has spiralled to a terrifying average of £7,650 per household.
	Moreover, we will be able to reverse some of the disgraceful structural trends that have occurred in the past few years. Personal income tax allowances for the lower paid have failed to increase in line with inflation, contrary to the Rooker-Wise amendment. The poorest 10 per cent. of people in Britain have to give some 90 per cent. of their income to the Government, before credits, benefits and other allowances are provided. Above all, as the Department for Work and Pensions recently stated, the incomes of the poorest 10 per cent. of households after tax and benefits have fallen in each year since 2001.
	It is vital to remember that, by giving the poorest workers the opportunity to keep more of their hard-won income, we would be allowing them to spend their wages as they wish, resulting in increased indirect revenues that will help us to balance the loss of income tax revenues. There is a strong case that my reforms could be undertaken without significant reductions in Government revenue, due to the increase in indirect revenues, the decrease in welfare costs as people move into work, the increase in national insurance revenues, the savings in Government bureaucracy, and the tackling of tax-avoidance problems. Fundamentally, the reforms should result in increased growth and vibrancy of the economy.
	The Bill is designed to take people living in poverty permanently out of the income tax system. It should be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Helping our lowest-paid workers is not a party political issue—it is a moral good. This is a practicable proposal and a modern manifestation of the proud Conservative tradition of offering opportunity to all.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr. John Whittingdale, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, Mr. Edward Leigh, Nick Herbert, Mr. William Hague, Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mr. Peter Ainsworth, Andrew Selous, Peter Luff, Sir George Young and Mr. David Curry.

'(1) A person does not commit an offence under section 24(1)(b)(i) of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (over-staying leave to enter or remain) by virtue only of remaining in the United Kingdom at a time when the conditions in this section are satisfied.
	(2) Condition 1 is that—
	(a) the person's leave has been curtailed, or
	(b) his application for variation of leave has been refused.
	(3) Condition 2 is that a decision has been made to remove the person from the United Kingdom.
	(4) Condition 3 is that—
	(a) the person could bring an appeal against that decision while in the United Kingdom by virtue of sections 82(2)(g) and 92(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (appeals) (ignoring any possibility of an appeal out of time with permission), or
	(b) the person has brought an appeal against that decision while in the United Kingdom by virtue of those sections and the appeal is pending.
	(5) In subsection (4)(b) "pending" has the meaning given by section 104 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.'.
	As Amendments to Mr Secretary Clarke's proposed New Clause (Over-staying leave pending appeal) (NC1): —[Mr. McNulty.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment (c) to new clause 1, No. (c), in line 4, at end insert—
	'( ) At a time when the conditions in this section are satisfied a person's leave to enter or remain is extended by virtue of this section save that such extension shall not prevent a decision to remove the person from the United Kingdom being made.'.
	Amendment (a) to new clause 1, No. (a), in line 8, leave out subsection (3).
	Amendment (d) to new clause 1, No. (d), in line 8, after 'been', insert ', or could be'.
	Amendment (b) to new clause 1, No. (b), in line 10, leave out '3' and insert '2'.
	Amendment (e) to new clause 1, No. (e), in line 11, at beginning insert
	'where a decision to remove a person from the United Kingdom has been made'.
	Amendment (f) to new clause 1, No. (f), in line 11, leave out from 'decision' to '(appeals)' in line 13.
	New clause 5—
	"90 Entry clearance
	(1) A person may not appeal under section 82(1) against refusal of entry clearance as a visitor unless the application was made for the purpose of visiting a member of the applicant's family.
	(2) In subsection (1) the reference to a member of the applicant's family shall be construed in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.
	(3) Regulations made under subsection (2) may in particular
	(a) define 'member of the applicant's family" for the purposes of this section;
	(b) make provision by reference to the duration of two individuals' residence together;
	(c) confer a discretion.
	(4) A person may not appeal under section 82(1) against refusal of entry clearance as a student if the application is for entry clearance to follow a course of study and—
	(a) the course of study for which he has been accepted will not last more than six months,
	(b) he has not been accepted for a course, or
	(c) the course of study for which he has been accepted is not at a UK education institution on the approved register.
	(5) Where a person has no right of appeal under subsections (1) or (4) above, a person applying for entry clearance as a dependant on his application shall have no right of appeal.
	(6) Nothing in this section prevents the bringing of an appeal on either or both of the grounds referred to in section 84(1)(b), (c) and (g)".'.
	Amendment No. 47, in page 1, line 3, leave out Clause 1.
	Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 16 [Clause 1], at end insert—
	'( ) the leave was granted to a person to follow a course of study at a UK education institution on the approved register; or'.
	Amendment No. 33, in page 1, line 16 [Clause 1], at end insert—
	'( ) the leave was granted to a person who had applied for but not been given asylum or humanitarian protection as an unaccompanied minor but had been granted exceptional or discretionary leave to enter or remain'.
	Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 21 [Clause 1], at end insert—
	'(fc) Variation of, or refusal to vary, a person's limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom if—
	(i) the leave was granted to a person to follow a course of study at a UK education institution on the approved register; and
	(ii) the result of the variation or refusal taking effect is that the person is unable to—
	(a) complete that course of study,
	(b) attend or undertake any event or activity in connection with that course of study, or
	(c) move from that course of study to another course of study at the same or another institution.'.
	Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 31 [Clause 3], at end insert—
	'( ) An appeal under subsection (2) may be brought in the United Kingdom.'.
	Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 36, leave out Clause 4.
	Government amendments Nos. 27 to 29.

Tony McNulty: I preface my remarks to this group of amending provisions by alluding to what happened in Committee. We had a very fruitful and productive series of sittings, with engaging debate and useful points being made by Members on both sides. On the many occasions, although, I think, not all, when I said that I would look further into particular matters, I have sought to do so and have tabled amending provisions, where appropriate. New clause 1 is the first example.
	Much disquiet and concern was expressed in Committee about the gap between the notification of someone's leave coming to an end or being curtailed for whatever reason and the one and only time permitted under the Bill to appeal against removal initially and then all the other elements leading up to the removal. Members of the Committee were concerned, as I said, because they did not want people to be committing an immigration offence if they stayed in the UK while bringing an in-time appeal against a removal decision. That was an entirely fair point and new clause 1 was tabled in the light of those genuine concerns expressed by Opposition Members in Committee. As I said, that was characteristic of the sensible and constructive manner in which the Committee's work was conducted. I am pleased to move new clause 1 in response.
	It is entirely a matter for the House authorities, but, under the broad heading of appeals, a significant number of amending provisions and amendments to them are appended that embrace a number of concerns. It is my intention—I believe that it is in order, Mr. Speaker—formally to speak to new clause 1 and then, in the fullness of time, to listen to all the concerns expressed in the debate, including the other amendments, and to respond appropriately to them. I prefer to do that, rather than pre-empt discussion by giving my view on every aspect of every other amendment in the group at this stage of our deliberations.
	To finish speaking to new clause 1, where a person has no leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, a decision can be made that they should be removed from the country. By virtue of section 82(2)(g) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, that is an immigration decision, which gives rise to a right of appeal to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.
	If the appellant has made an asylum or human rights claim while in the UK, or argues that removal would result in a breach of their rights under EU law, that appeal can be brought prior to their removal from the UK. In all other cases, any right of appeal against a decision to remove can be exercised only once the appellant has left the country.
	The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that a person who has complied with the term of their leave—that is, who has made an unsuccessful application for further leave in time, or who has existing leave curtailed—is not liable to prosecution under section 24(1)(b)(i) of the Immigration Act 1971 as an overstayer during any period in which they can bring an in-country appeal against a decision to remove them from the UK, or in which such an appeal was pending.
	As I said in Committee, it is not our intention to force people who have observed the conditions of their leave to risk criminal sanction during their appeal. The new clause fits with principle that there should be a "soft-touch, light-touch" compliance regime for those who comply with our system of immigration control, but far stricter enforcement for those who abuse it.
	The new clause fills a gap in the original Bill about which legitimate concerns were expressed. In Committee, I undertook to explore whether we needed to introduce further proposals and, if so, whether existing rules would provide a suitable vehicle or could be modified to do so. I also undertook to consider whether new legislation was needed. After much thought and reflection, we believe that it is on balance right and appropriate to include these provisions on the face of the Bill. That is the intention behind Government new clause 1.
	I repeat that I shall return to the Dispatch Box when other hon. Members have had a chance to state their case in respect of the new clause and the other amendments that are grouped with it, quite fairly, under the broad heading of "Appeals".

Evan Harris: I certainly endorse the hon. Lady's remarks: she saves me from having to repeat those points later. As she knows, we have tabled amendments to the new clause to try to tease out some of the issues and we hope that the Minister will explain, in answer to her questions and ours, how he will deal with the problems other than criminalisation of the overstayer.

Cheryl Gillan: I hope that my hon. Friend will manage to catch the Speaker's eye because he can cite a pertinent and personal example from his constituency that should be brought to the Minister's attention. The Government's track record is far from perfect, hence the problems that we are encountering.
	Let me return to the point about engineering made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). Some 39 per cent. of postgraduate research students who are here are international. There are especially high proportions of such students in science, engineering and technology subjects. As the European Commission tells us—goodness knows why I believe the European Commission on this occasion, but I think I probably do—Europe is 700,000 scientists short of meeting what was originally the Lisbon goal of making Europe into a competitive and dynamic set of knowledge-driven economies.
	The Prime Minister himself launched an initiative in 1999 to attract an extra 50,000 international students to higher education and another 25,000 to further education by 2004. I understand that the Government plan to renew that initiative, but at the same time they are sending out conflicting messages through the Bill.
	The UK attracts 13 per cent. of all international students, with the US attracting 31 per cent. However, we are losing market share. As I said, according to the OECD, the UK lost 3 per cent. of its market share between 1998 and 2002. That was the fastest decline of any OECD country. I admit that the US also lost market share after tightening up on visas following 9/11. It suffered a 2 per cent. drop in 2002–03, but it has learned its lesson and eased up on its visa restrictions. The UK could learn a lesson from the Americans on this matter.
	Amendment No. 6 would delete clause 4 in its entirety. Depending on the Minister's response to the debate, I might be forced to press the amendment to a Division. If that happens, I hope that Members of other Opposition parties—and, indeed, some Labour Members—will join me in the Lobby. The amendment is an attempt to address the heart of our concerns about the Bill. The removal of rights of appeal is opposed on principle and on practical grounds by such a wide range of organisations that I wish to focus the Minister's mind clearly on the problems.
	The Minister has argued that when the new points system on which the Government have been consulting is introduced, it will represent a new and better system. However, the details have not even been finalised yet, let alone road tested and proven to be effective. In Committee, the Minister repeatedly asked us to trust him. He said that he was confident that the new points system would improve initial decision making. He implied that if we just wait and see, we shall understand that the Government are correct to predict, as they appear to do, that the right of appeal will be rendered unnecessary by improvements to the immigration system.
	The Minister also said that clause 4 was unlikely to commence immediately. I have read carefully what the Minister said in Committee about amendments to clause 4. His words on the timing of the abolition of appeal were not exactly reassuring. He said:
	"I cannot say absolutely that clause 4 will not be introduced until after the points system. To be helpful to the Committee—I say this on a personal level, so do not put me up against a wall and hold me to this—I think that it is very unlikely that clause 4 will be implemented before, at the very least, the transition period between the absolute points system and the introduction of elements of the system . . . Do not shoot me should some of clause 4 be implemented before the points system is introduced, but in all likelihood it may not."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 20 October 2005; c. 116.]
	That was as clear as mud. Quite frankly, on the basis of that performance, I would quite like to put the Minister up against a wall and shoot him, because that was probably one of the most inarticulate utterances that we heard from him in Committee.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend tempts me to go down an enticing route. Yes, the performance of many Government agencies is sadly lacking, especially the Child Support Agency, which has an appalling record. I had an Adjournment debate on that very agency only the other day: a constituent of mine felt that she had been very badly treated.
	The problem is reflected in the statistics. In 2003–04, 65 per cent. of the 225,030 applications for student visas were successful, but 32 per cent. were refused. There is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that the reasons for refusal are frequently inappropriate or based on a simple misunderstanding of the facts of the case in question. In 2003, we were told that 52 per cent. of all applicants who had been refused initial entry clearance appealed successfully. In cases relating to international students, the official proportion of successful appeals is 25 per cent., but the Immigration Advisory Service states that the appeal was successful in 49 per cent. of the cases in which it acted on behalf of students.
	In 90 per cent. of the cases involving international students who had accepted offers from the university of Sheffield and who were refused visas, either a successful appeal was made or, more commonly, the entry clearance post reconsidered the case before it reached appeal. Professor Bob Boucher, vice-chancellor of the university of Sheffield, has repeatedly made the point that without the right of appeal the incentive for entry clearance officers to reverse a visa refusal following representations will no longer exist. He is echoing a point that is extremely familiar to the House. In 1992, the then shadow Home Secretary opposed a similar measure in the Bill that became the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, which removed the right of appeal for rejected visitors and short-term students. He said:
	"When a right of appeal is removed, what is removed is a valuable and necessary constraint on those who exercise original jurisdiction . . . The immigration officer who knows that his decision may be subject to appeal is likely to be a good deal more circumspect, careful and even-handed than the officer who knows that his power of decision is absolute."—[Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 43.]
	I ask the Minister the question I that asked in Committee, to which his answer then was not satisfactory: what has changed since then? Was the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) wrong, or merely na-ve at that stage?
	For the benefit of the House it is important that I give some examples to illustrate my arguments, although I expect that other hon. Members will offer examples of their own. A prospective student with a place at a highly regarded university was told:
	"Similar courses to the one you are proposing to follow were available in Sri Lanka at a fraction of the cost of a similar course in the United Kingdom."
	Unbelievable. Another university reports considerable difficulty in recent months with the visa application process, especially from China and South Asia. It said that on one academic linkage between the university and a partner institution in China, out of 25 applications only 10 were successful in obtaining a visa and then only after two or three attempts. Only as a result of the intervention of senior university staff and Ministry staff in China was a higher level of success achieved, despite it being a joint programme. It said that there appeared to be little appreciation that students had studied two years in China prior to application with the specific intent to transfer for the third and final year to a UK university. The university believes that it loses between 200 and 300 genuine students each year due to careless screening, inappropriate questioning and unsympathetic consideration by some visa clearance officers sending the signal of "fortress Britain", where students are not necessarily welcome.
	Another university reports difficulties with visas. For one student, doubts were expressed about the student's ability to maintain and accommodate herself—notwithstanding the fact that she had a grant from her own home Government to cover all of her costs. The immigration officer in the case also said that there was no reason for her to experience the British education system, which runs contrary to the spirit of the Prime Minister's initiative. There seems to be scope for further training of ECOs on the importance and quality of UK education. One institution reported that a prospective student from China was told that the course he proposed to study was widely available in China, led to the same qualification at significantly cheaper cost, and said that he could not satisfactorily explain why he did not undertake the course in China.
	Difficulties for sponsored students have been reported by other institutions. Two students were refused on the basis of insufficient funds despite both producing evidence of scholarships that covered the full cost of living and studying in the UK; the decisions in their cases were overturned by entry clearance managers on review following institutional representations.
	I think that I have given the House the flavour of the problem. We are in danger of damaging our reputation further. I do not know whether the Minister has read the article in The Independent of 20 October, which stated:
	"The drop in overseas students becoming obvious this term is affecting old and new universities alike. The big boys such as Warwick and Birmingham are experiencing falls, just as Derby, Greenwich and Southampton Solent are. We won't know the exact figures until mid-November . . . so we don't know yet whether overall overseas student numbers will be down. But we do know that a substantial number of universities are worried. Overseas students have kept British universities afloat, particularly in some subjects. Universities cannot afford a meltdown.
	The reasons for the fall are complex. According to . . . the director of education and training at the British Council, huge competition is building in the overseas student market. Australia, New Zealand, America and Canada have raised their game, and new competitors are emerging, such as Singapore and Malaysia. And China, which used to send large numbers of students abroad, is now recruiting overseas students to its shores."
	If the Minister fails to heed that warning, it will be at the expense of our education establishments.
	I have probably spoken for far too long on this group of amendments, but I feel strongly about the subject. I shall listen carefully to the Minister and if I am less than satisfied by his response, I hope to register our protest against the measures by dividing the House.
	My final comment is on Government amendment No. 27, to which the Minister did not speak. I am pleased to see at least some response to our concerns about the quality of entry clearance decisions, but I ask the Minister to make it clear whether the monitor mentioned in the amendment is a new person, what case load is envisaged and what resources will be allocated to the role. Although I welcome the post, it should not be seen as a plaster to cover the wound of the removal of the appeals system; a monitor will in no way substitute for that system.

Evan Harris: I shall deal with our concerns about clause 1, and I shall also speak to amendment No. 47, which would delete clause 1. I shall look at the problem of overstaying in clauses 1, 3 and 11, and the way in which the Government attempt to solve that problem in new clause 1, as well as the amendments to that provision that my hon. Friends and I have tabled. Finally, I shall say a brief word about clause 4, as a great deal has already been said about it.
	The problem with clause 1 is that people will not be allowed to appeal against a refusal of extension of leave in country. Students, workers and spouses will lose their in-country right of appeal and will have to leave the country in order to appeal. That seems an unfair way of treating people who are in the United Kingdom legally, have abided by the terms of their leave and are simply seeking to extend it.
	Sometimes the initial leave is given with a view to the likelihood of further leave being granted in future. A spouse or an unmarried or civil partner is expected to stay with their partner for more than the initial two year period, of course. If there were doubts about that, they would not have been given leave in the first place. The granting of leave in such a case presupposes a reasonable right to apply for leave and therefore to appeal against decisions that are wrong, without having to seek human rights grounds on which to do so. In addition, business people are welcomed to the UK with limited leave in order to set up a business. I presume the expectation is that they will grow that business once they are here, and therefore seek leave to remain more than two years, particularly in view of the provision that they invest more than £200,000.
	Various groups of people would be affected by the clause. I have mentioned some of them. They include a person married here who has been living two years with their British citizen or British resident spouse, perhaps with children, who has been refused indefinite leave to remain on the basis of that marriage. I will deal in a moment with the proportion of decisions that are won on appeal. It is pretty significant to get that wrong and separate people from their spouse and/or their children.
	The clause would also affect a work permit-holder—for example, a nurse, a maths teacher or a head of an export department in a big company, whose employer wants them to extend their contract but whose application is refused, at least in the average third of cases where that decision is wrong; a person established in a business, who has invested £200,000 or more, and who has created, under the regulations, at least two jobs for people settled in the UK; and a student several years into their studies—we heard examples of how they might be affected in respect of graduation.
	The Government's position seems extremely unreasonable. It is not as if such people had hopeless cases. There is no right of appeal in the case of mandatory refusals—that is, where there is a mandatory requirement on the basis of age or nationality, or specific requirements to switch from one category of leave to another. Those cases do not attract a right of appeal. As I said, 33 per cent. of in-country non-asylum appeals succeeded in 2003, the last year for which figures are available. The Government have never justified the sweeping powers in clause 1.
	The Minister suggested in Committee that it was unfair to give a right of appeal against a refusal to vary leave in cases where the decision results in people having no leave left, whereas those who applied and were refused before their original leave runs out get no such appeal. However, that unfairness does not exist in practice, because as we know, the Home Office urges people not to apply for a variation, such as an extension, until shortly—usually a month—before their leave expires. When a person applies for a variation and is refused before their leave runs out, the normal practice would be for them to make a fresh application before the leave expires. It is not an appeal, but it provides an opportunity to address what are said to be the shortcomings in their original application, which are identified in the refusal.
	At present, people prefer not to do that because of the cost, but if they are faced with the prospect of becoming overstayers if they do not, more will apply earlier. If more people apply more than a month before their leave runs out, that will create more bureaucracy or a replacement bureaucracy for the Home Office. That does not make sense. I see one of the Ministers—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham)—in his place. Can he confirm that it will be his policy to continue to tell people not to apply for a variation more than 28 days in advance, or does he recognise that the effect will be that people will want the opportunity to get their refusal while they still have leave to remain?
	I endorse the points made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) in respect of unaccompanied minors. I shall not repeat what he said in the Chamber or in Committee, but he is right.
	Our main concerns about clause 1, in summary, are that the Government's desire for a single appeal can be achieved using existing powers. If the object is streamlining, we demonstrated in Committee that there are alternative ways to achieve that. We are not opposed absolutely to streamlining, but the provision is not a fair way of doing so. It is misleading to say, as the clause does, that people will still have a right of appeal against removal, if they will be able to exercise it only after they have left the UK. That is not the same thing. It puts people at a significant disadvantage and it is no cheaper for the Home Office to run the appeal from abroad. If anything, it may well be more expensive. The Government are relying on people not bothering to appeal. Denial of justice is not a substitute for justice.
	We have already explained that the Home Office decision making is poor, so the best thing the Home Office could do is improve decision making, not deny appeal rights. The rights at stake are important. We have discussed the situation of spouses and people who are investing or working or who want to continue their rights to education and training. The opportunity for all these good things—family life, more education and training, investment—will be lost if people have to leave the country for an appeal against removal. The current system is not broken in terms of its structure. Decision making could be improved, but it does not need fixing on the suggested basis.
	In Committee the Minister spoke at length about the new managed migration schemes. I am not inviting him to do so again, as he spoke eloquently and with passion on the subject then. Whatever the system is, there will still be the problem of people seeking to extend their leave. The Government say there will be a new and better scheme, but that does not solve the problem of injustice. There will still be human rights applications, which will still be allowed, but because of the fracture to family life that will result from the provision, more people will attempt to make such appeals than would otherwise be the case. The Government will not gain as much as they anticipate.
	On the new clause, the problem that the Government have created in respect of clauses 1 and 11, which was clause 9 earlier, is, as we heard from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), that people are effectively overstayers when they receive the first judgment—that is, they do not get extended leave. I am disappointed by new clause 1, which is why I tabled a series of amendments. The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Walthamstow spoke to those amendments, so it will not be necessary for me to speak to them at length.
	The Minister said he would deal with the problem of criminalisation, although he did not accept the language adopted. However, as we heard from the hon. Lady, the new clause does not do that very effectively. He also said in Committee, at column 60, that he intended to clarify matters. However, given all the issues that were raised, not least by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, the new clause does not do so at all. It does little more than reflect the status quo and is quite inadequate.
	On the basis of what he has heard in the debate, can the Minister say whether there will be other provisions to follow new clause 1? If he can give that undertaking, it would be welcome. However, if the Government propose nothing more than new clause 1 to deal with the issues raised by calling people overstayers before they have had a chance to exercise their right of appeal, that is a problem. Does he recognise that people who lodge a human rights appeal have an in-country right of appeal, and that, like everyone else with an in-country right of appeal now, they are allowed to stay in the country on the basis of their existing conditions while that appeal is heard? Even when there is a human rights appeal to be heard and it is not certified as clearly unfounded, the Government are saying that those people will still be treated as overstayers. That is a real change for people in the country who are arguing a non-certified human rights claim. Will the Minister at least concede that those people should not be considered as overstayers and that their existing leave should carry through to the appeal stage, as it does now? Does he think that anyone should be entitled to carry through their appeal right, and if so, who?
	Is the Minister going to do something about the problem, which the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has already identified, that people who leave the country to appeal will do so as overstayers, which will blot their records? That problem is caused by the architecture of the Bill, and new clause 1 does not deal with it effectively.
	I will deal with the Liberal Democrat amendments to new clause 1. Amendment (c) would insert the following:
	"At a time when the conditions in this section are satisfied a person's leave to enter or remain is extended by virtue of this section save that such extension shall not prevent a decision to remove the person from the United Kingdom being made."
	That is the key point that the hon. Members for Walthamstow and for Chesham and Amersham and I were trying to capture in Committee. I cannot see why it is not possible for the right to remain to carry through to a simple right to appeal against the decision to remove.
	Amendment (a) would leave out "Condition 2" to probe why none of the rights not to be persecuted apply until after a decision has been made to remove, when we know that a decision to remove can happen many days, weeks or months after the decision on the extension.
	Amendment (b) is a consequential amendment. Amendments (d) and (e) are another way of making the point to the Government that their approach is not reasonable. They seek to clarify that people are entitled to some consideration when a decision could be made to remove a person.
	In his introductory remarks, the Minister said that he would not discuss the amendments until they had been introduced. I hope that he will address not only their structure, but the real reasons behind them, which have been politely put from both sides of the House.
	We have a major problem with clause 4 in and of itself. It is not right when the quality of decision making is so poor to sweep aside appeal rights. The priority should be to improve decision making, and in Committee we recognised the Government's willingness to implement programmes to improve decisions. Sweeping away appeal rights is wrong, regardless of the consequences for the universities and for family life.
	I endorse the points made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and will not repeat them, but I have a number of questions. Are the Government planning to define "family visitor" more narrowly? And will Parliament have an opportunity to examine the draft regulations to see who will have appeal rights before hon. Members are asked to vote on the legislation?

Evan Harris: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. If new clause 1 is not improved, or if the Government do not indicate that they will consider our amendments, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will seek to vote on amendment No. 47, which would delete clause 1. We would ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to support us in such a vote, because of the real problems that the Bill will create. I feel that if we do not do it here, another place could, should and will.

Roger Gale: My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham has made the point that educational establishments—universities and colleges—are experiencing a decline in the numbers of foreign students. Those of us who have the good fortune to travel abroad as election observers in developing countries with the Inter-Parliamentary Union or the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association see China, which is the largest developing country in the world, moving into a whole host of other countries, where it seeks to gain an advantage in the same way as the former Soviet Union.
	The British legacy—let us be proud of it—across the continent of Africa is significant, but scores of Africans are now looking to other places and other institutions both to the east and to the west of this country, because they feel that it will be difficult to get here, that it will be expensive to pay their way and that they will not be made welcome. Nothing could be further from the truth: if one asks the university vice-chancellors, they say that they want to welcome overseas students with open arms, but the impression has been given—impressions are vital, particularly in the developing world—that it will be difficult and unpleasant to study in Britain and that overseas students are not wanted, which is a sad state of affairs.
	I ask the Minister to consider the effect of that impression in a generation's time. All those people are ambassadors, many of whom have brilliant brains and very good qualifications. They have traditionally come to the United Kingdom, qualified, and gone back home having become the friends of this country. Now, they are going to be lost to us. It is no good the Minister shaking his head, as he did a few moments ago. The Bill will have a profound effect on British business and our power and influence throughout the world. That is the backdrop to what I want to say.
	I want to take one very specific point to prove why I believe that this part of the Bill is nonsense and amendment No. 3 is so important. The Institute of St. Anselm in Cliftonville in my constituency is a highly reputable Roman Catholic college. Some of its buildings were opened by Archbishop Basil Hume. For most of the early years of my membership of this House, students—nuns, priests and ordinands—came from around the world, but particularly from Africa, to study theology there. In 2002, we suddenly experienced a spate of visa refusals for students to attend the institute.
	I have a file on this subject that is more than 12 in high. I am holding in my hands 87 separate pieces of paper. Hon. Members will be delighted to know that I do not propose to quote from most of them, but I will quote from some of them. On 25 June 2002, I wrote to the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), who was then a Home Office Minister, about the problems that the Institute of St. Anselm was having:
	"the Institute is a bona fide organisation and . . . therefore applicants of this kind"—
	the students—
	"should have their requests granted rather than turned down and forced to go to appeal."
	I have personally dealt with 19 cases that would have been ruled out of court under the Bill.
	When I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham to say that the Home Office's track record on defining a bona fide institution was not entirely brilliant, the Minister said from a sedentary position, "It's just as well that the DFES does it then, isn't it?" That sentiment was broadly echoed by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard).

Roger Gale: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It would perhaps have been helpful to hear from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as well, because interdepartmental responsibility is involved.
	On 25 July, following my letter to the then Minister, Lord Filkin—a Home Office Minister—responded. He said that
	"as a result of the enquiries by my officials,"—
	that is, Home Office, not DFES, officials—
	"it was decided that the institution did not fully meet the requirements of a bona fide institution, hence the reason for the refusal decision."
	We challenged that in the light of the institute's background and support from the Catholic church, including eminent people such as Cardinal Basil Hume.
	On 8 August, I wrote to Lord Filkin. I said:
	"I feel that the time has come when I have to ask formally that the status of The Institute of St Anselm be investigated and recognised formally in view of the assertion pertained in your letter that 'The Institute did not fully meet the requirements of a bona fide institution'."
	I had to write to him again on 17 September, saying:
	"I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to confirm that this matter is now being dealt with as a matter of urgency . . . and would like your assurance that it has been satisfactorily resolved."
	Throughout this time, students were being turned away and having to appeal on grounds that would be denied under the Bill.
	On 12 September 2002, Mr. Lawrence from the integrated casework directorate of the immigration and nationality directorate wrote to Louise Cuming at the Institute of St. Anselm, saying:
	"I can confirm that from the information submitted, I am happy that the Institute of St Anselm meets the requirements of the Immigration Rules."
	We thought that we were back on track—that the students seeking to apply would have their visas granted and there would be no need for them to appeal—but, no. That is what the IND said in September, but on 1 October Lord Filkin wrote to me to say that
	"further enquiries are already being made by the Immigration Service to establish whether or not St Anselm is now deemed to meet the necessary requirements to qualify as 'bona fide'."
	Although one part of the immigration service believed that the institute was bona fide, Lord Filkin was pursuing further inquiries.
	On 7 October 2002, Lord Filkin wrote to me to say:
	"You will be pleased to hear that those investigations are now complete and my officials are now satisfied that all of the requirements of the Rules have been met.
	I understand that a letter to this effect was sent to Louise Cuming on 12 September and I am enclosing a copy".
	That was despite his having written to me on 1 October to say that inquiries were still going on, at the same time as students were still being turned down and required to go to appeal. Those appeals would be denied under the Bill. That is why amendment No. 3 is so important.
	Following Lord Filkin's letter, the director of the Institute of St. Anselm wrote to me to say:
	"However it has to be said that this information had clearly not penetrated Heathrow Airport three weeks later, where three of our students were held for between six and twelve hours while our status was clarified . . . It is therefore disappointing to see that the same information . . . does not appear to have reached Lord Filkin."
	We can begin to see a pattern emerging.
	Perhaps the Minister will begin to understand why I have very little confidence in the ability of the system—part of which may be the responsibility of the DFES and the FCO, and a significant part is certainly that of the Home Office—to ensue that fair decisions are reached. Unless we are absolutely certain that decisions are fair, students who are unfairly treated, or feel unfairly treated, must have some right of appeal.
	After all that, one would have thought that things would be all right. Geoffrey Filkin had told me that it was a mess and that he was going to sort it out. However, I had to write to him again on 8 November of that year. I said:
	"On Sunday the 30th September Jabulani Khumalo, a student intending to commence a course at the Institute of St Anselm arrived at Heathrow Airport at 7am. Mr. Khumalo carried letters of invitation from the Institute, a letter of designation from the Bishop . . . and confirmation that the fees would be paid directly by the Diocese."
	I will not go through the whole sorry incident, but Mr. Khumalo was held for three hours. Investigations were conducted and correspondence was opened, and he was finally escorted to the plane and escorted off it when he arrived back in Johannesburg. Eventually he came back to the United Kingdom.
	In my letter to Lord Filkin, I went on to say:
	"It is . . . plain that the assertion made by Mr. Lawrence to the effect that 'I have today notified staff and Ports' is . . . nonsense".
	The fact is that the undertakings given by the Home Office throughout this sorry episode have not been worth the paper that they are written on.
	I appreciate that I am talking about one educational establishment, but I have no reason to suppose that such errors are not being made time and again.
	Lord Filkin wrote to me on 15 May—we are now in 2003, so this has been going on for more than a year—to say that
	"following our previous correspondence, assurances were given both to yourself and the Institute that the establishment now met the requirements of the Immigration Rules and that immigration staff had been advised of this fact. It is most regrettable however that whilst the Institute was informed of this on 12 September 2002, the central computerised records were not amended until early October. It is now apparent that students intending to study at St Anselm's continued to experience difficulties".
	He was so right about that.
	More time passed, and more students were affected. We are about halfway through the 19 cases now, Mr. Deputy Speaker—they are piling up. On 6 May 2004, a year later, I had to write to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who was by then at the Home Office, to say:
	"In spite of this and Geoffrey Filkin's clear undertakings, the message does not appear to have reached Entry Clearance Officers around the world",
	and more in the same vein. On 29 June 2004, I wrote again to the Minister to point out
	"the failure of successive government ministers to properly resolve this issue in spite of assurances given to me".
	On 30 June 2004, there was more of the same. The Minister wrote to me to address the issues, and effectively to apologise, mentioning an "error". He wrote:
	"As each student application will be checked against this information, I hope that there will be no repeat of mistakes of the past by entry clearance officers about the status of the Institute".
	This was two years after the Department had determined that everything was all right.
	On 1 July 2004, Jessica Mabbutt, the head of the correspondence section at UK Visas, wrote to me:
	"The Institute of St Anselm's correct status as an educational establishment is now available to all Entry Clearance Officers and I hope that the Institute's status should no longer be cited as a reason for refusal in any application."
	Yet still the cases were coming in. Without the right of appeal that would be made available in the amendments tabled today, these students would have been denied access to the education that they were finally, in most cases, able to enjoy in the United Kingdom.
	We come, at last, to this year. On 8 February 2005, I wrote to Bharat Joshi, head of section at UK Visas. I want to place on it record that Bharat Joshi is one of the most helpful and sympathetic civil servants that it has ever been my privilege to work with. He is a super guy, and he tries his level best to sort things out. I wrote to him, and he was immensely helpful, but even he could not sort this out. I received a letter from UK Visas on 21 March 2005, which stated:
	"Although at the time of Fr Okora's application the Entry Clearance Officer was satisfied that Fr Okora met the other student criteria, the Institute of St Anselm was not at that time"—
	this is 2005—
	"on the list of recognised educational establishments."
	This is three years later—[Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that there was not one. If that is so, why does UK Visas go on to say:
	"His application therefore fell to be refused"?
	What would Father Okora have done if there had been no right of appeal?
	I wrote to the Home Secretary, the Minister's boss, on 30 March this year, to say that I would be grateful if he would look into the matter. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) was by then the Minister in charge—we have got through quite a chapter of Ministers in the Department, have we not? Let us bear it in mind that the institute has been recognised, then not recognised and then recognised again. The Minister wrote on 14 April:
	"I am satisfied that there was no fault within the Department's procedures and that the Institute of St Anselm was included on the Register at the earliest opportunity."
	Four years? Are we serious?
	On 8 July, I wrote to the head of correspondence at UK Visas, Peter Hooper—another extremely helpful civil servant—and told him that
	"I was given Ministerial assurances that our Embassies and High Commissions would be notified of the approval of the institute".
	On 1 August 2005—we are nearly there, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I received a letter from UK Visas concerning Sister Bernadette Mwita, saying:
	"The Entry Clearance Manager in Nairobi reviewed the decision to refuse entry clearance in the light of your representations . . . and decided, given the information enclosed with your letter, to overturn the refusal decision."
	What would Sister Bernadette Mwita have done about her education at the Institute of St. Anselm, had there been no right of appeal?
	Sister Matilde Adong, Sister Joan Tombe, Sister Anna Patrick, Sister Teresa Hanh, Sister Mary Kim, Yaqub Gill, Jabulani Khumalo, Mary Ebbele, Leopold Kashama, Cajetan Metu, Barthelemy Namdeganaramna, Rita Dube, Lourdes Manrique, Hye Ko, David Okeke, Leo Rozario, Ambroise Bahiya, Bernadette Mwita and Joyce Hoedoafia are all real people whose initial applications to come to this country to study—in many cases as sisters in the Catholic faith—were rejected by entry clearance officers because of the blinding incompetence of the Home Office and its inability to recognise this one institute. I recognise that this is one case, but it involves 19 real people. If this can happen in the case of the Institute of St. Anselm, what might be happening in all the other educational establishments across the country?
	I am firmly convinced that the Government are making a profound error. In all equity, a right of appeal must be granted to students whose applications to come to this country to study on bona fide educational courses are rejected. I hope, for that reason, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham to move amendment No. 3 and to press it to a vote. I shall most certainly support it.

Elfyn Llwyd: I rise to support amendment No. 3, amendment (c) and the consequential amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats. The most controversial parts of the Bill, clauses 1 and 4, also cause the most concern. They would result in there being no more in-country appeals in variation cases in which people had applied to extend their leave or to change from one category to another. I understand the need to tidy up in this area, but the Bill is not the right vehicle for that exercise—at least, not the Bill as currently framed.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and others have said that one of the most insidious consequences of these measures will be their effect on international student numbers. All our universities depend to a large degree on international students. We should be proud of the fact that people come here to study, succeed, and make an economic contribution to society—whether in the UK or abroad, it matters not.
	I went to Aberystwyth university in Wales in the early 1970s, and I was proud to have friends there of many nationalities, including people from sub-Saharan Africa and many from Iraq. Most of them were studying agriculture, and many went on to study for an MSc or PhD. They would probably not be allowed to do that now, because their time would be up. In March this year, I met two members of the Iraqi Cabinet who had studied in Wales, but it will be far more difficult for such people to study here in future, which is a great sadness—[Interruption.] The Minister, in his usual way, shouts, "Rubbish".
	Home Office decision making is, as we all know, of poor quality, and one of the most important things that must be done is to improve the quality of that decision making. Even a cursory look at the figures shows that many appeals are granted because of mistakes made at an early stage. Whether they were innocent mistakes or not, I do not know, but we are all aware that some pretty basic mistakes are made.
	We have heard many statistics today, one of which was that, according to the Government's figures, 25 per cent. of student appeals are successful. Other statistics show a figure as high as 49 per cent. Even the lower figure represents tens of thousands of students who, under the Bill, would be forced to leave the UK to present their appeal.
	It was said earlier that the Bill might be a way to get rid of such people because they will not bother appealing once they have left this country. That is insidious. It is unfortunate that this Government, of all people, are presenting such a measure and it is misleading to say that there is a right of appeal against removal when it will be exercised only when the person has left the UK. That is nonsense. There are things that the Government can do under existing legislation. I understand their desire to achieve a single appeal, but many commentators say that that can be done under current powers. I must stress that decision making needs to be improved.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, said that many things are at stake. He and I, and others, have received the Immigration Law Practitioners Association briefing, which I found very useful. He mentioned the right to be with a spouse and children and the right to continue in business. All those rights are important.
	Many variation cases will involve human rights claims, and as was said earlier, there is a right to present those human rights claims within the UK jurisdiction. Therefore, even on that basis, I fail to see how the Bill can be certified as being compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998, although time will tell. It is obvious to me—to anyone, I think—that human rights points will become stronger if people are forced to leave the UK pending appeal. It will, inevitably, bring the legislation into disrepute if, time after time, human rights cases are presented to defeat it.
	If the Government insist on taking these powers, one would have hoped they would redesign the clauses to achieve a broader in-country appeal process that could anticipate the consequences of removal, and that they would not base their new proposals on an appeal right that was available only to those who have left the UK. That has been stressed; it is worthy of being stressed again.
	I shall not keep hon. Members any longer. The amendments are sensible and I hope that the House, if it divides, will support them.

Simon Hughes: I, too, shall be brief, but I hope that the Minister, as I have heard him do in other contexts recently, pays heed to some of the strong cases that we are making in calling for clauses 1 and 4 to be substantially rethought. I do not dissent from the points put by the hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), as well as other colleagues. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) made a particularly good case, which I hope has resonated among hon. Members.
	I want to make three observations, which relate to the two categories of people that the debate is about and which support amendments Nos. 47 and 6, which, effectively, would allow us to start again in this area by removing those parts of the Bill. Those categories of people are students and those who come here aged under 18 and are suddenly told when they are over 18 that they can no longer stay.
	I make my observations from three pieces of experience. First, as a constituency MP, I have regularly dealt with such cases, which have caused unnecessary additional trauma to people who come here with the best of motives, wanting to give of their best and to contribute. They come with the intention of learning and then leaving or because they can think of nowhere better in the world to come to.
	I am dealing with several cases at the moment, and I alluded earlier to some of the countries involved, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Another that comes to mind is Liberia—often, the African countries involved have a very poor recent history. Other people come here as students from perfectly peaceful countries. They are regular people who come to Britain because they think it is either the best place to learn or the best place to come to having had to flee their own country.
	Secondly, I make my observations on behalf of institutions such as those in my constituency that either want these people to come to them if they are students or want to take them on if they come fleeing from torture. I represent London South Bank university and a large part of King's college, London. The medical and dental schools are in my constituency. Many London School of Economics students live in student residences in Southwark, as do students from other universities and colleges, and, locally, students from Southwark college.
	Institutions such as those not only benefit from and rely on such people coming here, but contribute hugely because they are coming—not just from the Commonwealth, but from all over the world. The institutions benefit in particular from people who come from the Commonwealth because they want to be here and think they will be welcome. Given that so many such people have a history of being rejected only to succeed on appeal—we have heard the figures—it would be quite wrong to deprive people in that category of the opportunity to appeal.
	Thirdly—this is not a declarable interest, but I have registered it because it matters—I make my observations because I have been privileged to be involved with the Council for Education in the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Youth Exchange Council. Both seek to foster good relationships, and other Members of the House, across the parties, have been involved. The Commonwealth Youth Exchange Council gets involved when people are teenagers and growing up so that they will think well of our country and might consider this a place to come to, just as we want our young people to experience other countries. There is a reciprocal benefit: we give, but we also receive; we send our people abroad so that we can receive others.
	The Council for Education in the Commonwealth is about ensuring that people have shared Commonwealth experiences as young adults. That cannot work if so many people go back to their country reporting difficulties, which undermines the ethos and credibility of this being a good place to come to. That is the point that the hon. Member for North Thanet made.
	A friend of mine is a Southwark councillor who fled Sierra Leone and became the first African mayor of Southwark. He did his university studies in Russia. I have no complaint about that, but the reality is that other places—whether in eastern Europe, Russia, China or elsewhere—will bid for and take those who should rightfully come to us and will benefit from it.
	I hope that the Minister understands that the Government's new clause and their other amendments will not remedy that problem, as the Bill will create it. We are dealing with limited categories of people and recognised institutions. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) would ensure that we were dealing with recognised institutions, whether it be Oxford and Cambridge or St. Anselm's in Cliftonville, Kent. These would be places that were being seen to do a valid job, whether they be generalist or specialist, or agricultural or theological colleges. They would be places where people came to learn English or computer skills.
	I ask the Minister to consider and respond sympathetically to a serious and regular case. If we can get this right, we shall do our reputation a huge amount of good. If we get this wrong, we shall further disadvantage our reputation. We could also harm the prospects of those people of complete integrity and merit—mainly, they are young—who benefit from coming here and who have a right legally and validly to put their case to stay for a further course or a further opportunity, but whom the system is somehow failing.
	I hope the Minister will make a hugely sympathetic response. If we do not manage to succeed today, we shall rely on the House of Lords to change this part of the Bill, which is wrong and which will have adverse and serious consequences.

Adam Afriyie: I want to thank the Minister for the spirit in which he introduced the debate, which has encouraged some open and honest contributions. I also want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) for his contribution, which gave 19 tangible examples in relation to the amendments. I want to speak briefly about amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6.
	Certainly, the holding of British nationality is a privilege that must not be underestimated. British citizenship and educational qualifications are much sought-after commodities across the globe. We have a proud history and heritage, and a successful and prosperous economy that has been built up over hundreds of years, alongside our educational institutions. Our heritage is on display across the nation, not only in historic buildings and infrastructure but in the education institutions that we all know and that many of us have enjoyed. We also have a vibrant democracy.
	With the robust and extensive infrastructure that we have built up over generations—sewers, rail networks, power stations, airports and roads—as well as our vast array of substantial historic buildings and institutions of state, and our excellent universities and higher education establishments, it is no wonder that people from across the world, of all nationalities, would wish to join us for a short or sometimes longer period to study and learn. We have a great history of welcoming not only those genuinely fleeing terror but those who seek to learn at our educational establishments.
	We want to encourage overseas students to pay for studying at our institutions. International students derive many benefits from studying in Britain. It provides not only an excellent education by world standards but an opportunity to learn about our way of life, culture and customs. That builds a reservoir of good will among those students for their future relationships with the United Kingdom.
	Without the amendments, and by removing the right of appeal for certain classes of students, we shall build a reservoir not of good will but of ill will. Someone who comes here to study, of which we have heard many examples, pays fees that help our economy and, in a way, subsidises the education of British citizens. The education that they receive propagates the English language across the globe, and students become more comfortable about dealing with Britain, as they have an understanding of our institutions and democracy.

Keith Vaz: I apologise for joining the debate during the hon. Gentleman's speech. Does he not agree that one way in which the system could be improved is through the three Departments concerned with entry clearance—the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs—using one reference number to deal with such cases? He must have had the same problem as I and other Members have had in trying to find three reference numbers to deal with one particular case.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman follows his list of selected amendments, it will be very straightforward to understand where any votes that I or other occupant of the Chair may allow will come. I hope that I have assured the hon. Gentleman that we are proceeding in a satisfactory and orderly manner.
	New Clause 2
	"153A Detained persons: national minimum wage
	(1) After section 153 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c.33) (removal centre: rules) insert—
	(2) "153A Detained persons: national minimum wage
	A detained person does not qualify for the national minimum wage in respect of work which he does in pursuance of removal centre rules."
	(2) After section 45A of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c. 39) (exemptions from national minimum wage: persons discharging fines) insert—
	(2) "45B Immigration: detained persons
	Section 153A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (persons detained in removal centres) disqualifies certain persons for the national minimum wage.".'.—[Mr. McNulty.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Tony McNulty: That is an entirely fair point, and I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to get to it later, as I develop my remarks.
	Prisoners who undertake paid work would do so on the basis of an exemption from the national minimum wage in section 45 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. There is no similar exemption for immigration detainees in removal centres, and that is what we want to remedy. Paradoxically, individual detainees held in prisons are, by default, covered by the exemption for prisoners. That means that an immigration detainee incarcerated temporarily or otherwise in the prison estate is covered by the exemption for prisoners and could do paid work. In contrast, that person could not do paid work on transfer to the removals estate. The exemption created by this new clause would therefore remove that anomaly and bring detainees in removal centres in line with people held in prisons.
	It is important to note that all paid activity would be entirely voluntary and provided in addition to the various educational, sporting and recreational activities offered to detainees at present. Detainees would be encouraged to participate, just as they are in relation to other activities, but in no way would they be compelled to carry out the work. Detainees who chose not to participate in paid activity would continue to receive any allowances due to them under the removal centre incentive schemes.
	Work opportunities provided to detainees are likely to be of two main types. The first type would be the "traditional" custodial activities such as light cleaning, kitchen assistance, laundry work and gardening. However, I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, and assure the House that contractors would not be allowed to bid for such work on the basis that detention centre internees would be used. That will not be allowed to happen.
	The second type of paid work would include activities organised by charitable or voluntary groups, for which detainees would receive direct financial reward for participation. Detainees would not engage in commercial work of any description, and I hope that that answers the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow directly.
	This measure is principally intended to enhance detainee welfare, with the consequential benefits for removal centre security. It will ensure that the existing range of activities available in removal centres can be complemented by paid activity, which has well established benefits for those in custody.
	As I said in connection with the previous group of amendments, I shall end my introductory remarks there, and respond later to points raised in the debate.

Tony McNulty: I shall happily write to the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for his comments on the amendments in this group. I hesitate to say that I will hand-deliver any response to him because I have enough to do without doing a poor impersonation of Postman Pat or a member of the Communication Workers Union. With all those frivolous comments put to one side, I commend Government new clause 2 and the Government amendments to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendments made: No. 27, in page 3, line 32 [Clause 4], at end insert—
	'(2) For section 23(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (monitoring refusals of entry clearance) substitute—
	"(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to monitor, in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine, refusals of entry clearance in cases where, as a result of section 88A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (entry clearance: non-family visitors and students), an appeal under section 82(1) of that Act may be brought only on the grounds referred to in section 84(1)(b) and (c) of that Act (racial discrimination and human rights).".'.
	No. 28, in page 5, line 18 [Clause 9], leave out from 'Kingdom' to end of line 21 and add—
	'(4A) An appeal under section 82(1) brought by a person while he is in the United Kingdom shall be treated as abandoned if the appellant is granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (subject to subsections (4B) and (4C)).
	(4B) Subsection (4A) shall not apply to an appeal in so far as it is brought on the ground relating to the Refugee Convention specified in section 84(1)(g) where the appellant—
	(a) is granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a period exceeding 12 months, and
	(b) gives notice, in accordance with any relevant procedural rules (which may include provision about timing), that he wishes to pursue the appeal in so far as it is brought on that ground.
	(4C) Subsection (4A) shall not apply to an appeal in so far as it is brought on the ground specified in section 84(1)(b) where the appellant gives notice, in accordance with any relevant procedural rules (which may include provision about timing), that he wishes to pursue the appeal in so far as it is brought on that ground.'.—[Andy Burnham.]

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 6, line 28 [Clause 14], after 'employ', insert
	'for more than 15 hours in any one week'.

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point—there is of course a corporate criminal offence set out in the Bill—and he might wish to develop it himself in the course of the debate.
	The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, a much-respected body, also has concerns about the provisions. It has consulted businesses, and has registered on behalf of many of them concerns about the provision for a civil penalty. A problem that it has identified—perhaps the Minister will address it directly—is that the Government are almost asking employers to become
	"'enforcers' of immigration control and that the threat of civil penalties as well as the requirement to repeatedly check documents will act as a disincentive to employers hiring foreign nationals, including those who are 'documented' and ethnic minorities."
	So a lot of genuine people who have a full right to work could find themselves—for completely understandable reasons—accidentally discriminated against. They would therefore suffer as a result. When the Minister tells us about his consultations with the CBI and other business organisations, I am sure that he will be able to address those concerns.
	The provisions would result in an even greater burden being placed on smaller businesses, which should not be expected to act as a continuing watchdog on behalf of the Government. Amendment No. 8 sets out an exemption for the employers of part-time workers. Its purpose is to ask the Minister please to be very cautious before placing unnecessary burdens on small employers who employ people part-time or just for one-off jobs, because they would be covered by the civil penalty.
	Amendment No. 9 is a probing amendment that proposes to leave out clause 14(1)(b). This proposal would not place quite such a burden on the employer as the existing one. The employer would be subject to a penalty if he employed someone who had not been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK, but would not face a civil penalty if, for example, the person whom he had employed had leave but it had expired and there was a possibility of its being renewed. The Minister may remember that this issue was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who always takes a great interest in these matters. The Government's response at that time, though helpful in part, was incomplete. That links up with my point on that amendment involving the nature of the documentation, which the employer will have to read and understand. Some of those documents are complex.
	I am going to say to the Minister something that may trouble him a little. I have read that those employers who are concerned that the penalty provision might impact on them can phone an employers' helpline—a hotline of sorts for employers—to get the fullest possible advice as to what they should and should not do, and how they should approach individual employment cases. The parallel with the immigration hotline, which is used by many of my hon. Friends and Members across the House to get answers on immigration matters, is interesting. I want the Minister to tell us in his winding-up speech whether the employers' helpline—or it is a hotline?—exists. Will he give us its telephone number? I have a number in front of me, but something tells me that it might be more appropriate for him to talk to us about this, just in case I have the wrong one. I think there is such a helpline and that it will be useful for employers.
	Amendment No. 10 is the one about which it is fair to say I feel the strongest. Clause 14(3) says:
	"An employer is excused from paying a penalty if he shows that he complied with any prescribed requirements".
	Amendment No. 10 would introduce a few words giving the employer an excuse if he
	"took reasonable steps to comply with any prescribed requirements".
	As we are hammering employers under this provision, if they have taken reasonable steps, they should have some form of excuse. That is the principal amendment to which I shall speak. It is, I think, linked with amendment No. 12.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) tabled a not dissimilar amendment in Committee, hoping thereby to ease the position of the innocent employer who may have made an innocent mistake. It was a pro-business amendment, so we were sorry, but not surprised, that the Government did not take it on board at that stage; nor have they tabled their own amendment today to ameliorate the position of employers. In tabling that amendment, my hon. Friend expressed his concern—and that of others, including the CBI—about that burden.
	In Committee, the Minister indicated that the clause would be watered down. He did not use those words, but suggested that it would be shown to be more employer friendly by a code of practice, which would apparently offer a more lenient approach to first-time transgressors. I do not know exactly what that means. If first-time transgressors are not to be penalised under this civil measure, let us hear it. If the Minister will have discretion not to penalise first-time transgressors, employers have no reason to be comfortable, because they simply will not know their fate. I hope the Minister can respond on that point.
	Prescribed requirements, which are not defined although the employer has to comply with them, mean inspection of documents. Anybody with the slightest knowledge of the immigration world realises that we are now entering a minefield. Picture yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or any of us here, running a small business taking on labour. Then, one asks to see certain documents. Bearing in mind that many documents that are not real seem to pass the test with our immigration officials and those at airports, I do not see how the innocent employer will spot them. Did you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is a piece of cake in Lithuania to wander along and buy yourself a Lithuanian passport, which gives you everything that you need to come into this country? Did you know that it is a piece of cake in Italy and Greece—I hasten to say that I have not done it, but I know it to be true—to get hold of a Greek or Italian identity card and wander into this country on that basis? Finally, I am not sure that employers are expected to know that there is a terrific trade of Brazilians entering Portugal and getting hold quite easily of Portuguese identity and other documents, and then wandering around the EU, not to mention this country. The notion that expertise must be put into the mind of the employer is illusory.
	My amendment No. 11 deals with a separate issue, and I hope that I have expressed fairly and opened up a debate on the burdens on employers, the concerns of business and the lack of detail that we have had so far. The clause states that a penalty notice must "specify a date". The date specified in the notice—goodness knows who sends it or has found out that an employer has an illegal migrant as an employee—is meant to be
	"at least 14 days after the date specified in the notice as the date on which it is given, before which the penalty must be paid".
	The amendment changes that from 14 days to 28 days. It is quite important—I know that the Minister is taking the point on board—that a reasonable period is given to the employer to pay the penalty. We do not know what the penalty will be, and have no idea who will judge how much it will be. If it is a Home Office official who decides on the penalty, such an official will have no idea about an employer's wealth, means or ability to pay and will, I presume, just pick a figure out of the air, which seems idiotic. It seems right, particularly as people are sometimes away for two or three weeks, that a reasonable period of grace should be given for the employer to pay the penalty.
	On the question of the financial means of the person in receipt of a penalty, I see nothing in the Bill to tell me that the level of the penalty will be adjusted according to the means of the person who must pay it. In our courts, however, defendants' means are carefully examined—they carefully fill in a form about whether they are on benefits or X pounds a week. As a result, the courts set the fine at a level compatible with the defendant's means. Where is that provision in the Bill, and where is the prospect of the Minister allowing a little more time? If one is fined in a magistrates court, one is invariably given, if one asks for it, 28 days to pay. That is why I have suggested that 28 days be allowed in relation to the penalty notice.
	Amendment No. 12 follows on from my amendment No. 10 and again seeks to lessen the burden on the employer.
	Amendment No. 13 asks us to leave out paragraph (e), which requires
	"action to be taken at specified intervals or on specified occasions during the course of employment."
	Not only will a burden be placed on an employer at the beginning of the employment, when he must inspect and deal with certain documents, but he will be required to do the same
	"at specified intervals or on specified occasions during the course of employment."
	Neither the specified intervals nor the specified occasions are quantified. We have had informal guidance from Ministers, but now that we have reached the Report stage, it would be helpful if this Minister went into more detail.
	Does the Minister think that the penalty clause is absolutely necessary? Existing legislation covers the employment of persons and the need to examine their documents. Will he comment on the workings of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, which require agencies that supply workers to carry out checks to confirm workers' identities? Is that invariably done, what pitfalls exist, and have any measures been taken against agencies that have not dealt with the matter properly?
	Will the Minister also comment on the workings of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which was intended to protect workers in the agriculture and shellfish sectors by requiring labour providers to register and apply for licences to act as gangmasters? Given that plenty of checks and regulations are already in force, and given that although there are probably 200,000, 300,000 or 400,000 illegal workers in the country—no one can gainsay that—only about 20 have been prosecuted in the last eight years, one wonders whether the real problem is that of enforcing existing law properly.
	Amendment No. 14 seeks to omit clause 15(3)(c). It is merely a probing amendment. Paragraph (c) says that a notice of objection must be given "in the prescribed manner". If someone wished to object to a civil penalty, what would the "prescribed manner" be? The question troubles me a bit, because it raises the possibility that a notice would be deemed faulty because it had not been given in the prescribed manner. If a defendant wishes to appeal against a conviction or sentence in court, he or she is not required to provide a notice of appeal in a prescribed manner; it is necessary merely to file the notice. If it is on the back of an envelope and reads "I wish to appeal against the sentence because I thought it was very tough", that is good enough.
	Amendment No. 15 relates to appeal against the penalty. I thought for a moment that the Minister was asking me to give way, but it seems that he is not.—[Interruption.] I am told that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) has just woken up. It is good to see him in his place.

Keith Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not "woken up". I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman for the last 30 minutes, as has the whole House. I just wish he would get on with it, as the business is guillotined.

Andy Burnham: I am grateful to hon. Members for the tone in which the debate has been conducted. We have had a proportionate and balanced debate on some very important issues. However, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said, we have yet to consider some perhaps even more serious issues on Report, and it is right to devote as much time as possible to those issues. With the permission of the House, I will seek to deal not with every point that has been made, but with the substance of hon. Members' arguments and the assurances that they want.
	With that in mind, I hope that I can persuade the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins)—I know that he is a reasonable soul—that a vote on amendment No. 10 will not be needed. I genuinely believe that I can give him the assurance that he wants. The secondary legislation detailed in the Bill will achieve the effect of his amendment. I know that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland indicated that he would support the hon. Member for Woking in such a vote, but if the hon. Member for Woking is in the mood for doing deals, I can say that I may well be minded to accept amendment No. 11, the other amendment that he described as important because it would put more flexibility in the Bill. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality and I are minded to say that the amendment is reasonable.
	Before I deal with the substance of the points that the hon. Gentleman made, let me turn to the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). My hon. Friend talked about additional burdens on the immigration and nationality directorate and asked whether the enforcement activity would impact on other work. He also talked about consultation with the ethnic minority community about the impact of the measures and discussed the IND's ability to deal with overstayers.
	We are bringing forward the measures because the regime introduced by the Conservative party has failed to fulfil its intended function. In the nine years since that regime was introduced, some 17 prosecutions have been brought, but that is not to say that the IND has not carried out many more operations than that to detect illegal working and that it has not detected many more illegal workers than that during the course of its activity. The situation demonstrates the inadequacy of the current offence.
	The measures that we are introducing, especially the civil penalty scheme, will put a wider range of tools at the disposal of the IND, so it will not have to use such heavy-handed means to address the problem. The civil penalty scheme is a more measured and calibrated system through which the problem can be addressed without having to resort to criminal prosecutions in every instance. On my hon. Friend's point about consultation, a draft code of practice has been published to set out the steps that employers can take to ensure that they keep within race discrimination legislation.

Keith Vaz: I want the Minister to picture my constituency and areas such as East Park road and the Belgrave road. Every single person who is employed in every single factory on those roads is from the ethnic minority communities. Some are British born, some have acquired citizenship and others have indefinite leave. Does he not accept that the measure will disproportionately affect members of the ethnic minority community, and have an impact on those who are in this country legally because employers simply will not want to employ them?

The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 274.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment made: No. 11, in clause 14, page 7, line 10, leave out '14' and insert '28'.—[Mr. Malins.]

Alistair Carmichael: I should tell the House that, barring anything earth-shatteringly revealing being said by the Minister on these amendments, it is my intention to divide the House on amendment No. 34 and, with your leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, on amendment No. 37.
	Unfortunately, time is short, and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I am keen to hear the words of honeyed sweet reason that I know will drip from the Minister if he is given the opportunity. So, if I may seek the indulgence of the House, I shall assume a greater degree of prior knowledge of the provisions of article 1(F)(c) of the 1951 Refugee Convention than had originally been my intention.
	I have chosen to focus amendment No. 34 because it seeks the removal of clause 51. The other amendments relating to that clause seek to achieve much the same end, but by taking rather more circuitous routes. I suggest that amendment No. 34 is by some significant measure the most straightforward and, if I may venture to say so, elegant way of dealing with this issue.
	I cannot think of another example in which the discretion of the courts in construing articles in a convention has been fettered in the way set out in clause 51. The clause purports to define article 1(F)(c) of the convention, which concerns exceptions based on
	"acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations".
	I do not understand why the clause is necessary, and that view is shared by the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association.
	In a briefing to me, the ILPA pointed out that the 1951 convention is an international convention in respect of which the international jurisprudence and UNHCR statements are relevant. The ILPA put it to me:
	"To purport to interpret it in statute is to fail to respect this jurisprudence and to usurp the role of judges in interpreting it."
	As ever, the Government seek to go much further than is necessary. The definition they want to import is much wider than is either necessary or desirable. I draw the attention of the House to clause 51(1)(b), which speaks of
	"acts of encouraging or inducing others to commit, prepare or instigate terrorism".
	A person may thereby be excluded from recognition as a refugee for acts that are not recognised in this country as crimes.
	The UNHCR handbook, which is part of the jurisprudence to be applied in construing this measure, says that article 1F(c)
	"is intended to cover in a general way such acts against the purposes and principles of the United Nations that might not be fully covered by the two preceding . . . clauses."
	That refers to article 1F(a) and (b). The handbook continues:
	"Taken . . . with the latter, it has to be assumed, although this is not specifically stated, that the acts covered . . . must . . . be of a criminal nature."
	It is apparent from that, surely, that the definition employed by the UNHCR handbook is already very wide. The only limitation that seems to be in place is that the act complained of should constitute a crime. However, even beyond that exceptionally wide definition the Government seek to go.
	That, again, is the view of the ILPA. The Minister might say, "They would say that, wouldn't they?" He might also say that if the Liberal Democrats are agreeing with the ILPA, that is equally unsurprising, but I must bring it to the attention of the House that that is the view not only of the ILPA and the Liberal Democrats, but of the UNHCR. If the House will indulge me for a few minutes, I would like to refer to a few of the objections that the UNHCR has brought to our attention.
	First, the UNHCR makes the point that clause 51 interprets article 1F(c)
	"out of its context, contrary to accepted rules of interpretation of a treaty under international law."
	Secondly, the UNHCR says that the clause
	"introduces an interpretation . . . which is incompatible with the accepted and long-standing interpretation of Article 1 F(c)."
	The UNHCR essentially makes the same points as the ILPA, as well as further statements, and the UNHCR briefing says that
	"bearing in mind the interrelationship between the three subsections of the provision, it is important that Article 1 F be interpreted and applied holistically. As presently drafted, Clause 51 is a piecemeal attempt to interpret one subsection of a provision which should be read as a whole and in context. UNHCR is concerned that the adoption of Clause 51 will result in a skewed and imbalanced application of the exclusion clauses in the UK. In its stead, UNHCR would recommend that the UK government consider the incorporation of Article 1 F in its entirety into domestic legislation. Such a measure would ensure that the exclusion clauses are considered in context and on a strong legal footing."
	The briefing then says that
	"terrorist-type acts (as defined in relevant international conventions) may qualify as excludable acts under Article 1 F if they reach an appropriate level of gravity to warrant denial of protection. This does not mean, however, that any act labelled as 'terrorist' per se should automatically trigger exclusion under article 1 F. The fact that there are serious reasons for considering that an individual has committed acts described as 'terrorist' in nature should trigger consideration of the exclusion clauses but may not in itself generally constitute sufficient evidence to justify exclusion. Each case will require individual consideration, taking into account the unique circumstances of each individual, their acts, motivation and risk on return. In this regard, UNHCR wishes to express serious concern over the current proposal in clause 51 to automatically link acts defined in the Terrorism Act 2000 with an excludable offence under Article 1 F(c) of the Refugee Convention."
	I am grateful to the House for its indulgence in allowing me to read that out, which is not my normal practice. It is important, however, to get the point across. If the Minister is not minded to listen to us, to which I have become accustomed over recent months, or even to the ILPA, surely such clear and unambiguous condemnation from the UNHCR should give the Government pause for thought.
	Clauses 52 and 53, which concern the deprivation of citizenship and right of abode, would, as drafted, introduce a ground that continued enjoyment of citizenship or right of abode was not conducive to the public good. That, of course, is the test applied in relation to deportation or exclusion—

Tony McNulty: I am glad that we have at least some time left.
	Let me rebut the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). He knows the context in which these clauses were introduced as well as I do. Although not all Members, including members of the Committee, were not party to the gestation period when the clauses were discussed, they were discussed on an all-party basis throughout and beyond the summer. The other place will be aware of that. I do not accept the terms in which my hon. Friend described the genesis of the clauses, or indeed the final discussions.
	I hope that the House will forgive me if I dwell on amendment No. 34, for reasons of time rather than for any other reason. The UNHCR considerations are serious, although in part they challenge and condemn many past UN discussions and resolutions.
	I received a very nice letter from Bemma Donkoh, the UNHCR's representative in London, which laid all these things out and said, "Best wishes, see you again soon, lots of love Bemma". We have a strong and not always unduly non-critical relationship. It is a good one.
	It is right and proper that, with all the cross-party deliberations about terrorism, these clauses sit in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, rather than in some omnibus terrorism Bill. I thank everyone on the Committee for setting a full day aside to deliberate these clauses and for the discussion that was held, which was interesting, informed and moved things on in some regard. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), as he has reminded me twice now, made a very good speech, although he seemed surprised that he had done so—there was shock in his voice when he said "I made a very good speech that day".
	The UNHCR points are serious and need to be considered with the seriousness that they deserve. The charge is that clause 51 is not compatible with the refugee convention but part of the justification for clause 51 in all its glory is that it reflects the relevant Security Council resolutions that refer to the guiding principles of the UN. UN Security Council resolution 1373 states that
	"knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts"
	as well as the commission of such acts constitute acts
	"contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
	UN Security Council resolution 1377 is broadly in the same terms. I said in Committee that, as and when—fortunately, the progress of Bills through Parliament favours this—there needs to be read-across between the Terrorism Bill and any changes made to the constituent parts of that, and this Bill, we will seek to reflect those changes in this Bill. That makes perfect sense. I cannot pre-empt what the other place will do with the Terrorism Bill, but we stand ready to cross-reference the two Bills in the appropriate place.
	I think that, given the state of this Bill and the state of the Terrorism Bill, little needs to happen, not least because Lord Carlile will conduct a substantive review of the definition of terrorism over the year. Much of the debate about read-across refers to the definitions that are included in the Terrorism Bill.
	We believe that the UNHCR's points about the definition of terrorism in the 2000 Act are unfair. The definition is compatible with article 1(F)(c) of the refugee convention, as is the 2005 Terrorism Bill. We do not consider it to be at odds with UN Security Council resolutions that were drawn up reflecting the principles of the UN.
	We are exhorted by UNHCR to take a holistic approach to exclusion clauses. We argue that we have done so, and they are reflected in this Bill. Clause 51 is not piecemeal. Our approach to the application of article 1(F) is holistic and we contest the points made by UNHCR in that regard.
	We take the same attitude to the points made about positions of power. The UNHCR London paper suggests that in principle only persons who have been in power or a state-like entity would be capable of committing such acts, given that articles 1 and 2 of the UN charter set out the fundamental principles that states must uphold in mutual relations. A slew of Asylum and Immigration Tribunal case law and Security Council resolutions themselves contend that very position. Although I take UNHCR's points very seriously and take into account the points made by my hon. Friends and other colleagues that these are serious clauses in the Bill, I do not accept UNHCR's point that, of themselves and in their own terms, they are incompatible with the overall thrust of what is in the UN charter. They are very serious clauses that are a consequence of what we are trying to achieve in the broader sense in counter-terrorism and I—

Amendment made: No. 29, in schedule 1, page 32, line 34, at end insert—
	'13A In section 104(5) (pending appeal) for "(d), (e) or (f)" substitute "(f), (fa) or (fb)".'.—[Mr. McNulty.]
	Order for Third Reading read.

Tony McNulty: I beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.
	As is customary on Third Reading, I thank all the members of the Standing Committee for what seemed to me, in my limited experience of the House, to be an informed, discursive and useful debate. We had plenty of time and all the necessary matters were considered in a spirit of reasonable discourse and, on the odd day, with some intellectual rigour. Our sittings were extremely useful and productive, as is right and proper given that the Bill deals with a range of extremely serious matters in the context of an important political debate. That description applied even before the Government introduced—with agreement—the counter-terrorism clauses after the Bill had been published. That was a most unusual way of proceeding, but the House in the main will understand why things happened that way. There was a significant degree of cross-party agreement on the process, if not on the substance of those clauses.

Tony McNulty: No, I will not.
	The Bill should be seen in the context of a substantive political debate. Last February, we proposed a series of plans and policies on asylum and immigration. We published a five-year plan, on which the Prime Minister elaborated in the course of the general election. The Bill addresses much of that, but as I said in Committee it constitutes a series of building blocks. I mean no discourtesy in respect of previous pieces of legislation introduced by the Labour Government when I say that the Bill is not, and was not offered up as, an all-singing, all-dancing omnibus Bill that answers every conceivable question on the range of immigration, asylum and nationality issues. I made it clear in Committee and on Second Reading and that much of what is in the Bill should be seen as building blocks. Although that does not fit in terribly well with our processes and how we do what we do, I said that the Bill needed to be read in the context of the five-year plan and all that we seek to do in that plan in terms not simply of immigration, but of asylum and how we are trying to secure our borders through the e-borders programme and the border management programme. We are putting out for public discussion every aspect of where we are with asylum and immigration.
	It would be remiss of me, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, if the Bill, as it is now to be dispatched to the other place, were not put in the context of the political debate. I make no apologies for mentioning again that collectively the British polity, British public policy and the British media did not serve themselves or others well by the way in which these matters were covered during the general election. Throughout the election, these matters were discussed in terms and in a form that was proxy for a debate that we may or may not need on community cohesion, on race and on other such issues. They were wrapped up in rather bogus fashion as constituting a serious debate. I fully concur, not least as the Minister responsible for immigration, that such a debate is needed.
	We need a debate on asylum and immigration matters, but the way that such matters were discussed during the general election is a matter of shame, not least for the Conservative party. I am extremely pleased that none of the dripping poison that polluted our democratic process was evident in Committee. I heartily congratulate every Conservative Member in Committee for not going down the route that their central party took during the general election. I freely attest that that route was not taken by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins); nor was it taken by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). However, in the context of the general election they should collectively hang their heads in shame and send the running dog from Australia back to where he came from.

Tony McNulty: Of course I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am glad that you allowed me a little licence to consider the political context in which the Bill has been discussed.
	There is no doubt, in the broadest of terms of British public policy over 30 years, that we have collectively run away from a substantive debate on asylum and immigration. I have no difficulty in engaging in such a debate. I am pleased that the Bill is before the House at a time soon enough after the election to put these matters in context. That is of great service to British public policy generally and to the House.
	The Bill is about only those matters that need legislation in the context of the five-year plan, based on what was published in February. The provisions in the Bill now put it in a better place than it was when we started consideration in Committee. There is no doubt about that. Many of the amendments that we discussed today on Report go back to our discussions in Committee and take on board many of the points that were made by Committee members. Sometimes they have not met the full satisfaction of hon. Members, but I think that people will concur, when they read the Hansard report of our considerations, that many Government amendments were an attempt to meet some of the concerns that were expressed in Committee. There were some genuine concerns, many of which, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I attested in Committee, will be readily dealt with in secondary legislation and in other forms that will be wrapped round the Bill rather than being part of it.
	We think that the Bill improves our ability to improve border security by allowing border agencies to share passenger data more efficiently. It allows the use of 21st century technology to facilitate legitimate travel and to improve the identification of illegal immigration. That is not simply in terms of the Bill but in the context of everything else that we are doing in respect of important elements of policy.
	I freely admit that the most contentious part of the Bill was the introduction of a rationalised appeal system for managed migration routes in line with improved decision-making on visa applications. That is very important in the context of the points system. I may not owe the House an apology, but I accept that it is difficult for Members who did not serve on the Committee to understand the narrow focus of the legislation without the wider picture of the consultation paper on the points system and other aspects of the five-year plan. I repeat the promise that I gave in Committee: as there is no substantive change to the points system during the transitional phase, we shall preserve the appeals regime during that period. If discrete parts of the points system can be introduced early, the quid pro quo is that appeals will fall away. That will give us sufficient time to bed in the new resources, the decision-making process and other improvements in entry clearance officer structures. Hopefully, if the full-time independent monitor is appointed by January, they will be in post when our new decision-making process is introduced, which is all to the good.
	Genuine concerns have been expressed, some of which I did not accept, about unifying the appeal process to a single level of appeal. However, I tried to address anxieties about the transition to a points system without appeals. The Bill provides for civil penalties for employers of illegal workers, and creates a new offence of knowingly employing an illegal worker. The five-year plan and all the provisions in the Bill contain the vital elements of a progressive asylum and immigration process. If we are to do everything that we can to maintain our position on the 1951 refugee convention and ensure that this country remains a safe haven for people fleeing persecution, we must simultaneously adopt a robust approach to the removal of people who do not have refugee status under the convention.
	Some people do not like that approach, but I am convinced that if we are to preserve the integrity of the convention—hopefully, no party will fight the next election saying that they will get rid of the 1951 convention, as that would be shameful—we need equally robust decision-making and removals processes.

Peter Bone: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on securing a debate on such an important issue. He will know that in the adjacent constituency of Wellingborough, this is a huge issue, too. Does he agree that parents have two main concerns when their nearly adult children go off perhaps to Northampton on a Friday night to attend a club? They are worried, first, about their children being in a car accident and, secondly, that they might be assaulted by some drunken yob in a club and come back home with dreadful injuries.

Fiona Mactaggart: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) on securing this important debate, and I am glad to have an opportunity to discuss the issues he raised. I thank him for liaising with Home Office officials on the issue, which has been raised by several Members, as was reflected in their interventions describing their constituency experiences.
	All Members present will want to join me in offering regrets and sympathies to Blake Golding and, in a way, our thanks for the fact that some good has come out of a terrible event, in the sense that we have been encouraged to campaign on this important matter and to address the consequence of glass being used as a weapon in cases such as those described by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne). I particularly pay tribute to the way in which Blake Golding's parents, Robert and Marjorie, conducted their campaign following the incident. I saw Marjorie on television this morning and she said that her son's life had been turned upside down. There is a duty on Government to act effectively to ensure that nobody else's life is turned upside down. How do we do that?
	Let us look at what is happening already. In Milton Keynes, partly as a result of the Goldings' campaign, the community safety partnership has a violence thematic subgroup, which is currently considering the introduction of plastic vessels in pubs and nightclubs. I am especially pleased to learn that the partnership will be participating in the alcohol misuse enforcement campaign that has just been announced, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) referred.
	The local police in Milton Keynes must also be commended for their overall approach to tackling the problem of alcohol-related violent crime and disorder. I understand that their proactive and targeted approach led to a reduction in public place violence offences of 39 per cent. between April and September 2005, compared with the same period in 2003, which is an impressive statistic. I believe that the proactive use of CCTV and fixed penalty notices has helped to contribute to that reduction. If alcohol misuse is going to be tackled effectively, full use needs to be made by all partners of the wide range of powers available.
	Of course the police have an important role to play in preventing alcohol-fuelled disorder, but the drinks industry has an equally important role. As the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes pointed out, Bar Mee in Milton Keynes has undertaken to serve customers using only plastic vessels in future.
	Milton Keynes local authority is currently discussing the issue and has an item for consideration by its licensing committee on 24 November in which it is proposed that licences should include a requirement
	"to ensure that . . . all drinking vessels in which drinks are served throughout the entire trading period shall be made of either toughened glass, or a plastic material that does not break into sharp pieces . . . no drink shall be served in a glass bottle".
	How can Milton Keynes do that? It is doing that on a notable day—the day on which the Licensing Act 2003, which the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to try to defeat yesterday, comes into force. That can be done because of the powers in that Act. He is wrong to claim that the 2003 Act empowers local authorities to turn only to toughened glass. It empowers local authorities, such as Milton Keynes, which covers his constituency, not merely to require that toughened glass is used, but to put in place a requirement as part of its licensing regime that plastic vessels be used.
	One of the reasons the Association of Chief Police Officers welcomed the introduction of the 2003 Act is that it provides the capacity to target and to develop locally appropriate licensing regimes.